list_device_wtp_profiles

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that credential fields are stripped from the returned profiles and sketches the return shape, but it omits permissions, error behavior, and pagination details for a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded, and organized into args and returns sections. The reference to an internal constant (_WTP_PROFILE_SECRET_FIELDS) is slightly implementation-specific but does not seriously harm conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers both arguments and the general return structure. It is nearly complete, with only minor omissions around permissions or error cases that are not essential for a listing operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'device' is explained as the managed device name, and 'vdom' is described as the VDOM to read with a default of 'root'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare string-typed schema fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: list FortiAP (WTP) profiles in a device's device DB. It is clearly distinguishable from list_device_wtps (lists WTPs) and get_device_wtp_profile (gets a single profile), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_device_wtps or get_device_wtp_profile. It only states what the tool does and its arguments, leaving selection entirely to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.